r195363 - Add support for legalizing SETNE/SETEQ by inverting the condition code and the result of the comparison.

[Daniel Sanders]

That's a relief. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

From: Bill Wendling [mailto:isanbard at gmail.com]
Sent: 25 November 2013 05:21
To: Daniel Sanders
Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: r195363 - Add support for legalizing SETNE/SETEQ by inverting the condition code and the result of the comparison.

Hi Daniel,

No worries. I loosened the requirement for this round a bit, allowing some people to commit patches after approval. Don't worry about reverting the patch you put in, just as long as it doesn't break things. :-)

-bw

On Nov 22, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel.sanders at imgtec.com<mailto:daniel.sanders at imgtec.com>> wrote:


Hi Bill,

Sorry about my commit to the release branch (r195363, I think the commit email is stuck in moderation since I don't see it in the archive). The announcement email (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-November/067917.html) led me to believe that people could commit their own work this week provided they had approval from the code owner but I've just come acrosshttp://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html#release-patch-rules which says differently.

Let me know if you want me to revert it.

Daniel Sanders
Leading Software Design Engineer, MIPS Processor IP
Imagination Technologies Limited
www.imgtec.com<http://www.imgtec.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20131125/b9739eeb/attachment.html>